[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
random

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 425684)
Message
File  []
close
_106024950_052666919-1.jpg
425684425684425684
>> No. 425684 Anonymous
5th April 2019
Friday 11:36 pm
425684 spacer
So am I the only one who is getting a bit annoyed by this whole Greta Thunberg cult, or am I just too much of a cold hearted cynic that the world would be better off without?

I don't doubt the legitimate concern of her generation over climate change, after all it will fall to them to sort out the utter fucking mess that we have left the planet in, but all the awards that she is now being showered with are IMO just middle aged and old people's guilt over their own failure to save the planet's climate despite having had decades of prior warning, and who lost their way and succumbed to high carbon footprint consumerism somewhere between 1990s road protest villages and today's school runs in a 4x4. None of it feels sincere or genuine, it's more like, yeah, just take all these awards and shut the hell up already.

And parents whose children now protest every Friday or so are now engaging in pissing matches on twitter and Instagram to show off which one of their kids gets the most involved. As one commenter said, nothing good has ever come of a youth protest movement that was applauded by parents.
1754 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 432494 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 7:14 pm
432494 spacer
>>432493

>You can start with yourself by realising that "having stuff" in of itself does not equate to quality of life and isn't inherently desirable.

This is the part where arguing with strangers on anonymous imageboards can be amusing, because if you were aware what type of person you've just said that to you'd piss yourself.

Anyway, it's all well and good to deliver the message that consumerism is pretty bad for the environment but it's still going to be supremely rich coming from us, in our first world country, towards third world countries when they inevitably reach that stage of development.

And they will reach that stage of development, because even our mutual friend Marx reckoned a transition through industrialisation and consumerism are necessary steps in the development of an economy. Evidence throughout history would tend to agree, and just more pragmatically, even if we do persuade people to stop buying all the plastic and burning coal in their gardens, they're still bloody well going to want an iPhone. That horse has well and truly bolted and blown the stable door somewhere into low orbit.
>> No. 432495 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 7:30 pm
432495 spacer
So rich nations are allowed to naturally reach a point where birthrates go down, but the Africans and Asians need to be castrated to stop them having babies? Don't they have a right to develop their societies and naturally reach the point where birthrates go down? Or are they just animals that need to be culled every now and again?
>> No. 432496 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 7:33 pm
432496 spacer
>>432495

>Don't they have a right to develop their societies and naturally reach the point where birthrates go down?

Well not according to you they won't, no, because that would cause an awful lot of pollution.
>> No. 432497 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 7:39 pm
432497 spacer

v-logo.png
432497432497432497
>>432495

I'd suggest we all just kill ourselves, but what will happen when all the carbon stored in our big fat bodies is released, en-masse, into the atmosphere?

Carbonogeddon!
>> No. 432498 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 7:54 pm
432498 spacer
>>432497
We're only about 18% carbon so it would be more than balanced out by the immediate reduction in carbon emissions released by daily life and the amount of plants that would be able to grow without our interfering/harvesting/weeding.

>>432494
>it's still going to be supremely rich coming from us, in our first world country, towards third world countries when they inevitably reach that stage of development.
Not if we've also stopped being so consumerist first and stop pushing consumerist propaganda at them, not half as rich as it'll be to start insisting they don't have children. I think it's fair to say most people, possibly misguidedly for various reasons, would prefer to have children than iPhones. What pressure Apple have to spend billions on in advertising to create want is done for free in regards to children by most people's mothers.
>> No. 432499 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 8:03 pm
432499 spacer
I'm beginning to genuinely think that there's a few people deliberately flushing out productive posts about collective action against climate change with market rhetoric and "accelerationism".

Accelerationism is either nihilistic if you just want everything to end, or deeply unethical and stupid if you think it will somehow "shock" us into going the other direction. History shows that the kind of economic pressures, natural disasters and breakdown of infrastructure that will come from unchecked climate change will affect the majority of the population -- starting with the poorest and working its way up. This is a position not worth talking about if you have any regard for human life (including your own).
>> No. 432500 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 8:21 pm
432500 spacer
>>432488

> I was arguing in favour of population control and people were arguing against me because it's racist due to falling most heavily on the poorest (and therefore brownest) countries


That may be, but here in the Western world, we will likely face a different set of problems.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSz0bA9CiE


>>432494

>Anyway, it's all well and good to deliver the message that consumerism is pretty bad for the environment but it's still going to be supremely rich coming from us, in our first world country, towards third world countries when they inevitably reach that stage of development.

That's indeed an ethical problem. On the other hand, countries and economies that are just now developing are said to often skip a few steps when catching up to us, especially the heavy industry stage that Europe was in from about the 1850s to 1970s. A few economies in sub-Saharan Africa have gone from almost entirely agricultural societies straight to service sector-dominated economic systems within one generation. If we keep moving the goalposts of what constitutes a modern Western economy, which developing countries will then aspire to, then maybe the example of modernity that they will emulate from us can be one of sustainability, low CO2 emission and low resource consumption. They don't inevitably have to make the same mistakes that we did.

But generally speaking, I think a deliberate reduction of the global population will be the only way forward. If that's going to be by killing off billions or by implementing a global one-child policy should then be subject to debate.
>> No. 432501 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 8:28 pm
432501 spacer
>>432500
>But generally speaking, I think a deliberate reduction of the global population will be the only way forward. If that's going to be by killing off billions or by implementing a global one-child policy should then be subject to debate.

Hans Rosling presented some pretty good arguments that the world will not exceed 11 billion people that might be worth looking at. Whether 11 billion is also too many is another subject.
>> No. 432503 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 8:44 pm
432503 spacer
>>432499

> I'm beginning to genuinely think that there's a few people deliberately flushing out productive posts about collective action against climate change

Because these "collective actions against climate change" are a load of bollocks with zero chance of working. We either need to de-industrialise, globally, or we need population control.

Nothing else is going to work. You can't change the fact that people are selfish pricks who think that rules apply to everyone else but them. Everyone wants to be the one chap who eats meat, who drives his car places where he can walk, who has two kids, and three foreign holidays a year. No amount of gurning children whinging about carbon footprints is going to convince someone to basically become a 19th century peasant.
>> No. 432504 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 8:46 pm
432504 spacer

>> No. 432506 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 8:51 pm
432506 spacer
>>432503
>You can't change the fact that...
Aren't those things you just listed individual actions against climate change as opposed to collective ones, which would be de-industrialisation (or population control, if you own a tiki torch)?
>> No. 432507 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 8:52 pm
432507 spacer
>>432501

> Whether 11 billion is also too many is another subject

I don't think you can in any way argue that the Earth isn't already greatly overpopulated with 7.5 billion or whatever the current figure is. Nothing about our current existence is sustainable. We're burning an amount of oil every year that would take the Earth three million years to recreate. Even if we stopped all deforestation today, it would take thousands of years for all of it to grow back as densely as it once was. There are estimates that it would still take another 50,000 years to reabsorb all the CO2 back out of the atmosphere that we've blown into it since the beginning of industrialisation. None of this will improve if the global population increases from 7.5 to 11 billion.

Altogether, globally, we are consuming 1.7 times the natural resources that the Earth can recreate every year.

https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/

>The world’s ecological deficit is referred to as global ecological overshoot. Since the 1970s, humanity has been in ecological overshoot, with annual demand on resources exceeding what Earth can regenerate each year. Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.75 Earths to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and eight months to regenerate what we use in a year. We use more ecological resources and services than nature can regenerate through overfishing, overharvesting forests, and emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than forests can sequester.
>> No. 432508 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 8:57 pm
432508 spacer
>>432503

You've completely mischaracterised the problem and what climate activism aims for. You also have a pessimistic view of human nature that I just don't think is true, and I actually think your post sort of proves it.

Think of it this way: consumer choice is an extremely limited way to address climate change. The fact that many people still try, though, is a sign that people want to do something but are not being given the opportunity to really influence things that matter. I've said in an earlier post that this desire to do something can be channeled in lots of different ways; it's not surprising that a consumerist society will find consumerist solutions and favour them heavily over more effective approaches.

It will make some small difference if enough people do it, but ultimately climate activism argues for systemic change -- not in the sense of returning to pre-industrial society, but in pushing for accountability for activities which damage the environment. Right now we live in a world where our economic system relegates climate to an "externality". Collective movements have the potential to put pressure on governments (and in turn, on private power) to introduce more regulation, fund research and development into better technology, change our infrastructure, and so on.

One of the most interesting aspects of Extinction Rebellion is that it's clearly aware of this -- the protests are not just about specific environmental demands, but one of their "big three" is having a citizen's assembly on climate issues, i.e. giving the general public more of a say in an issue that will (is) directly affecting them.
>> No. 432509 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 9:00 pm
432509 spacer
>>432504

That stand up special is from 1992. Nearly 28 years ago. It was a time when many of the general public were only just beginning to understand what was going to be ahead. Nobody, save for climate scientists, had a full grasp of the problems we would face three decades later. And George Carlin knew he was still going to have a large enough audience who would laugh about his jokes belittling climate change doomsayers.

As much as I've always loved George Carlin for his style of humour, he would probably be booed off the stage today and have droves of angry Twitter mobs against him.
>> No. 432510 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 9:04 pm
432510 spacer
>>432508

>not in the sense of returning to pre-industrial society, but in pushing for accountability for activities which damage the environment

You're still missing the valid point though that some have tried to make here, which is that reverting to pre-industrial emission levels is going to be the only thing that will save us. But all the energy efficiency and recycling in the world isn't going to make it happen if we've got ten billion people living on the planet.
>> No. 432511 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 9:06 pm
432511 spacer
>>432504

I love Carlin as much as anyone, but the point is a bit trite now. Climate activism doesn't argue that the world is ending, it argues that organised human society is threatened by it -- and that's also worth protecting.

>>432507

I'm not arguing with you, but I will say that I am cautious about putting "overpopulation" at the top of the list of concerns above, say, systemic change, or proper representation of people's concerns about climate change in government and trade, or properly taking into account the environment in how we order our industries.

Something about the subject of population control brings out the most awful and unproductive Darwinian arguments. Not saying that's what you're doing, but to be honest, I think if you choose to place your efforts anywhere it should be in the movements that will empower people and make a change, rather than one which may lead to authoritarian measures.
>> No. 432512 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 9:07 pm
432512 spacer
>>432507
>I don't think you can in any way argue that the Earth isn't already greatly overpopulated with 7.5 billion
You absolutely can as we throw away a third all food that's currently produced so by that metric we could easily feed ten billion, then there's the fact that if you switch a meat based diet for a plant based one, the amount of cropland required goes down by a factor of 20. That gives us a figure of 200 billion which is obviously silly as there'd be no way to house that many people let alone the emissions created by their heating or travel or other various sundries and logistics. So I'm not going to argue that we could realistically feed 200 billion people but if for some weird reason we decided to optimise everything for sustainable human production, we could definitely cope with a lot more than a measly 7.5 billion of us.
>> No. 432513 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 9:16 pm
432513 spacer
>>432512

You're still insinuating that the majority of the people will act accordingly and responsibly, and really stop eating meat and throwing away food or using plastic bags if you tell them to.

Just look at what's been happening with SUVs. It's been a known fact for 50 years that they are a big waste of petrol. And yet, in the face of accelerated global warming, they've been the fastest growing segment for car manufacturers in the last decade.

You may think I'm being arrogant, but the majority of people (and that doesn't mean your university-educated, double-income Prius drivers who enjoy smelling their own farts) are thick as pig shit when it comes to saving the planet, and will only comply with all your advice at gunpoint.
>> No. 432514 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 9:35 pm
432514 spacer
>>432513

Whether people buy SUVs is not necessarily a measure of whether they care about the environment. When asked the question directly, a majority of people strongly agree the world faces a "climate emergency": https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/18/climate-crisis-seen-as-most-important-issue-by-public-poll-shows

The fact people still buy and use certain goods in a society overwhelmingly geared towards the production, marketing and sale of such goods shouldn't be surprising. That people care about the environment seems pretty clear.
>> No. 432515 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 9:39 pm
432515 spacer
>>432513
I wasn't insinuating anything, I was just being pedantic for the sake of an opportunity to do some paper napkin maths.
>> No. 432516 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 10:36 pm
432516 spacer
>>432499
Well, depends really... What does "collective action" mean to you? I used to be a massive commiebastard. So, I would just love it if we had a top-down approach, such as outright banning certain things by BIG GOVERNMENT. Slavery was banned, and sure it caused a few market issues, but in the long-run, it was a good choice. If that can't be done - if I am being blamed for not having hummus on a carrot stick and not voting with "my wallet," then everything can go to hell. In that sense, yes, I like accelerationism.

You got cunts like this going round making arguments like:

Bikson said she cared deeply about the environment and that she “did her bit” but concluded, to further groans: “It’s all about us, there is no such thing as government. Government is just people."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/03/no-great-escape-tory-scales-fence-and-bins-to-exit-climate-hustings-lewes

This isn't even an isolated incident. Everywhere I go, it is the same message. The world is dying because I flush too much. No, massive industries are not at fault, no way. It is the consumer who is at fault.

So, fuck it all to hell.
>> No. 432517 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 11:47 pm
432517 spacer
>>432516
>Slavery was banned, and sure it caused a few market issues, but in the long-run, it was a good choice.

You're missing a step from the process, though: why did governments move to ban slavery? There was a lot of popular activism, from Anglican priests turned abolitionists to full blown slave rebellions in other countries. Government banned slavery because of popular pressure.

Many socially progressive movements follow a similar template.
>> No. 432518 Anonymous
4th December 2019
Wednesday 11:47 pm
432518 spacer
>>432516

Many people who say "it's a systemic problem" really mean "it's someone else's problem". If we're going to meaningfully address climate change, our lifestyles are just going to get worse in a lot of ways. There's no magic wand that will allow us to drive big cars and go on foreign holidays and eat loads of meat while achieving net-zero emissions. Those massive industries produce a lot of pollution because they make and transport the cars and petrol and fridge-freezers and turkey twizzlers that we buy; if they stop producing that pollution, we stop getting that stuff.

Systemic solutions only have a chance if most of the electorate is willing to do their bit, in the sense of accepting worse living standards. How many people would actually vote for a party that proposed banning passenger aviation? How many would vote for a party that wants to ration petrol? We can't implement top-down changes in a democracy without the consent of the electorate, so the first step is persuading a lot of people that a) the problem is real and b) the hardships of fixing it aren't as bad as the hardships of ignoring it.
>> No. 432519 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 12:01 am
432519 spacer
>>432518
I'm all for less materialism, but doesn't the developing world rely on our materialism in their quest to be as materialistic as us? What happens to the gorillions of our de facto slaves factory workers when we cut the symbiotic cord?

"Sorry fellas, we reached the peak level of prosperity this planet will allow and decided it wasn't worth the ecological damage. Trust us, that level of prosperity just wasn't worth it. Good luck in your next jobs!"
>> No. 432520 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 12:07 am
432520 spacer
>>432518

That's not to mention the unemployment that would come about from massively cutting back on our sheer production of stuff. The economy that has driven us to the point of development we're at today largely requires us making tons of crap.

I think all of this exposes one of the things that's often left out when talking politics. We are all more or less at the mercy of a giant, inconceivably complex system which has existed for thousands of years, gradually building momentum. We know what some of the levers do, but there are also buttons and switches we've never dared to tamper with.
>> No. 432521 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 12:07 am
432521 spacer
>>432518
>If we're going to meaningfully address climate change, our lifestyles are just going to get worse in a lot of ways

This really is an open question, for a number of reasons. You're ignoring the immense wastefulness of the current system, up to and including spending untold amounts of money on creating entirely unnecessary wants, let alone unnecessary products. It really is an unknown just how radically we could change our infrastructure if we took the amount of R&D being ploughed into socially irrelevant but profitable pursuits and redirected it. This is partly the premise of the "Green New Deal" in the US.

>We can't implement top-down changes in a democracy without the consent of the electorate, so the first step is persuading a lot of people that a) the problem is real and b) the hardships of fixing it aren't as bad as the hardships of ignoring it.

You've confused me with this, because again, polling shows most people are very much aware of climate change, and agree that it's an emergency.

In fact I think you've reversed this entire issue: the sticking point is not with the public, here. It is with government and private power that have interests in, and/or make immense amounts of money from, the status quo. Hence why the activism pushing for systemic change is so important -- that's what it means, getting government to listen to the public.
>> No. 432522 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 1:05 am
432522 spacer
>>432521

>This really is an open question, for a number of reasons.

It really isn't, because of basic chemistry.

Ruminants like cows and sheep produce large quantities of methane as an unavoidable part of their digestive process. Methane is 25x more potent as a warming gas than CO2. There are some feed tricks that can slightly reduce methane production, but ruminants simply cannot digest food without making methane. That means we'll have to eat a lot less beef, a lot less lamb and a lot less dairy; there are perfectly adequate dietary substitutes for those products, but the vast majority of people substantially prefer beef to TVP and cow milk to soya milk. Maybe we'll develop bioengineered substitutes that are basically indistinguishable, but we don't have time to wait for that technology - we have to cut back now.

Producing steel unavoidably requires burning coke, because the difference between iron and steel is the addition of carbon. We can build more efficient blast furnaces, we can use alternative energy sources for most of the heating, but steel manufacturing is inescapably carbon-intensive, so we need to make a lot less steel.

Portland cement is the fundamental component of concrete, plaster and mortar. Some of the CO2 emitted from the production of Portland cement is from heating and transportation, but most of it comes from the chemical reaction of converting CaCO3 into CaO. For every molecule of lime, you unavoidably produce one molecule of CO2. We have some substitutes for Portland cement in some applications, but they're all more expensive and less durable.

I could go on for days about this, but suffice it to say that we face a very long list of very hard problems, for which the only reasonable answer right now is "consume less". Maybe we develop a whole tranche of technologies by 2050 that make the whole transition to zero-carbon completely painless, maybe we figure out cold fusion, maybe God comes down from heaven and slurps up all of the CO2, but we have to act on the assumption that none of that will pan out.

>Hence why the activism pushing for systemic change is so important -- that's what it means, getting government to listen to the public.

But the public want a fantasy. They purport to care about climate change, but they aren't willing to countenance the realities of addressing it. Corporations don't pollute for shits and giggles, they pollute as a side-effect of providing us with goods and services. You might want to stop climate change, but that doesn't matter in the least - the question is what you're prepared to give up to achieve that aim. As I asked before, how many people would vote for a party that wants to ban passenger aviation? How many would vote for a party that wants to ration petrol and meat?
>> No. 432523 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 2:15 am
432523 spacer
>>432522
>>432521
It's funny how you both can be in the same thread as a dude who doesn't even understand the fucking basics of how trees work.
>> No. 432524 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 8:47 am
432524 spacer
>>432522

Brian just erased my whole post, so I'll provide a much shorter version.

>we face a very long list of very hard problems, for which the only reasonable answer right now is "consume less".

This is exactly what I'm saying, right now we live at a time when our basic science and engineering is actually going increasingly in the wrong direction. Research is being funded increasingly by private companies with short-term gains in mind.

You even propose potential solutions in your post. It's amazing that these exist at all in a world where this kind of R&D is dramatically underfunded. Historically we have shown that hard problems can be solved in a matter of years with a kind of massive state-funding model. This is the unknown.

>but we have to act on the assumption that none of that will pan out.

This is where I agree with you, we can't rely on technology to bail us out. Some of the big geoengineering projects are deeply misguided.

>Corporations don't pollute for shits and giggles, they pollute as a side-effect of providing us with goods and services.

Corporations pollute in the pursuit of profit and shareholder investment. I'm not being facetious, they are sometimes allowed to collapse if they fail to do so. The consumer and product are at best secondary concerns, and the environment doesn't rank at all. This is what they are, structurally. This is one of the systemic changes that can be made.

>You might want to stop climate change, but that doesn't matter in the least - the question is what you're prepared to give up to achieve that aim.

You're taking a dishonest approach, here. You're assuming the beliefs of the public, even with direct evidence to the contrary. You're assuming their behaviours wouldn't change, even when we live in a system that actively discourages them from changing, and doesn't provide alternatives. You're saying the public won't follow through on their beliefs, even as there's a movement toward giving the public greater decision making power over an area where government and corporate power has obviously failed. The only way you can come to your conclusion is if you assume that the current structure of government and corporate power must always exist, which is why your only allowance for change is voting.

The only way to tell what people really want and are willing to do is to give them more democratic control over this area.
>> No. 432525 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 9:42 am
432525 spacer
>>432524

>It's amazing that these exist at all in a world where this kind of R&D is dramatically underfunded.

The Chinese are currently spending more than the rest of the world combined on renewable energy R&D. We've reaped some benefits from that - cheaper solar panels, cheaper wind turbines, cheaper and better LED light bulbs - but it's a drop in the ocean, relatively speaking. Unless we're lucky enough to solve sustained nuclear fusion by 2050, R&D can only hope to offer small, incremental improvements that won't meaningfully offset the vast increase in global energy demand.

>You're assuming their behaviours wouldn't change, even when we live in a system that actively discourages them from changing, and doesn't provide alternatives

Right now, the only alternative that really counts is less. Don't buy that steak, don't take that flight, turn down your heating. The government can help to some extent, but there are no painless fixes. Either people can choose to consume less or the government can force them to consume less, but we have to consume less.

Ultra-efficient eco homes consume very little energy, but building a house emits the thick end of 100 tonnes of carbon and takes many decades to pay off, so it doesn't help all that much in hitting net zero by 2050. Train travel isn't actually that much more sustainable than driving an efficient car when you factor in the massive amount of infrastructure involved. Building an electric car produces something in the region of 20 tonnes of CO2, so the payoff versus a second-hand Ford Fiesta is at least 10 years. The most efficient form of long-distance travel by some margin is a coach, but I don't know anyone who'll get on a Megabus if they have any other option. The only truly sustainable journey is the journey that you don't take.

We might like to imagine that we can de-carbonise our current lifestyle simply by using better technology, but the numbers just don't add up. We have to get used to the idea that acting on climate change necessarily means living much humbler lifestyles.

>You're assuming the beliefs of the public, even with direct evidence to the contrary.

For the next week, make a point of asking people "Would you vote for a political party that wanted to ration petrol and meat in order to help the environment?". You may find the experience rather educational.
>> No. 432526 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 10:58 am
432526 spacer
>>432525
>The Chinese are currently spending more than the rest of the world combined on renewable energy R&D.

China operates under the same economic and political constraints I'm describing in other nations. Despite what they call themselves, they actually have something resembling state vapitalism. So the same critique applies, they may invest more than other nations, but not anywhere near as much as they could.

Adding to that, imagine what is possible if the rest of the world, especially the world's wealthiest nation, the U.S., were also pressured to change in such a way.

>For the next week, make a point of asking people "Would you vote for a political party that wanted to ration petrol and meat in order to help the environment?". You may find the experience rather educational.

This wouldn't really achieve anything. Vox pop interviews are an extremely unreliable way of gauging public sentiment about anything, not to mention you ignored the rest of my post where I'm saying that a top-down solution is not desirable here. It's a loaded question, you're presenting this hypothetical political party as the only possibility. That is plainly wrong.
>> No. 432528 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 11:15 am
432528 spacer
This thread is starting to take a long time to load. Maybe we should start a new eco debate thread here in /b/.
>> No. 432529 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 11:18 am
432529 spacer
>>432525

Everything you're saying only agrees with the idea we need to reduce the global population.

When you say "consume less" it's really not as simple as just buying less steak, taking less flights. As other lads have alluded to, the entire economy we live in is built on this vast and labyrinthine house of cards, where the wheels are kept turning by the money keeping on flowing.

Obviously I agree that we need systemic change, but even then the funding from taxation it will take to invest in that change relies on money coming from the very industries and consumer trades we need to, essentially, all but eliminate. We stop taking flights and the aviation industry collapses, there are millions of people unemployed, we need to get them into new jobs and doing that needs money. Now repeat that for steel, meat farming, construction, transport... Very quickly you're looking at wiping out all the biggest sectors of employment and revenue.

What I'm trying to articulate, probably not very well, is that it's all too interconnected to just scrap it all. We would face a very real prospect of not just failing to address the problem, but making it worse, if we try to radically shift the direction our entire global economy operates in, without also easing the burden of actual people who exist within that economy. We would put ourselves back a hundred years in progress and then, because we've shrunk the economy so much, we'd lack the economic power to invest in better alternatives to rebuild. The thing is humans are not a hivemind- Whatever government system you believe in or whatever your left right alignment, you have to on some level realise that to some extent, the only thing giving human civilisation any illusion of coherent cooperation is the tide of economic necessity.

I'm not saying it because I still want my big SUV and fancy gadgets so all the Africans need to be neutered. I'm saying it because I genuinely believe it's the only practical way to de-escalate the crisis without also plunging society into anarchy.
>> No. 432530 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 11:42 am
432530 spacer
>>432529
>the only thing giving human civilisation any illusion of coherent cooperation is the tide of economic necessity.

I don't think this is true. We have a number of institutions that are based on other values like dignity and fairness. Our health service brings about a tremendous amount of solidarity for good reason, as one example.

Other than that, I get what you're saying, the transition would of course have to be carefully thought out. I'm curious to know what you'd make of things like the Green New Deal, then?
>> No. 432533 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 12:14 pm
432533 spacer
>>432529

I'm really not sure why so many people here balk at the idea of population reduction.

When you look at the last 30 years, a time during which the general public became fully aware of the problems we will be facing in the future, our CO2 emissions per person have increased, people still buy big thirsty cars, and they actually go on more holidays per year and to further-flung destinations than they did in 1990.

You are just simply not going to be able to count on ten billion people having enough swarm intelligence to collectively avoid behaviours that are damaging to the environment, and to a great enough extent that it will halt global warming or even reverse it. Unless you turn the entire planet into a ruthlessly enforced eco dictatorship.

Why is it such a bad thing to tell people they can only have one child. We can't have our cake and eat it too, i.e. make no concessions at all if we want to avoid said eco dictatorship. Reducing the global population back to four billion or thereabouts would hugely ease the stress to global ecosystems. The commonly held belief is that the human population became unsustainable in the 1960s to 70s, which was when we hit the four billion mark. Granted, we will not be able to just go back to four billion people over night, unless there's a global nuclear war of course. But even a decrease from 7.5 to 5 billion would probably still have a noticeable effect, especially if more money is devoted to energy efficiency research.

Also, the discrepancy between people saying they want to do more for the environment and actually doing something for it is down to the well-studied Bradley effect, and its underlying so-called social desirability bias. When interviewed, most people will want to appear like decent human beings and will give answers that are socially desirable, but don't necessarily reflect what they actually think. So if you ask most people "Would you be willing to sacrifice parts of your lifestyle in order to save the environment?", then most people will emphatically answer "yes". But you shouldn't be surprised if those same people then go on to buy an SUV and go on two holidays to the Caribbean a year.
>> No. 432534 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 12:53 pm
432534 spacer
>>432528
Why the fuck would you want to read more than the last 50 posts? It's just bickering and going around in circles ad nauseum.
>> No. 432535 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 12:57 pm
432535 spacer
>>432534

Some people reply to posts that are about ten or twelve posts up in the thread. Especially when there's heated debate in a thread and loads of people post at the same time, it can get hard to follow.
>> No. 432536 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 2:07 pm
432536 spacer
>>432533

We're now going around in circles.

Social desirability bias may affect people's answers to some degree, yes, but what they do is affected by what the market offers (something inherently undemocratic as it's controlled by what is most profitable to private companies), and the influence of advetsiing (hundreds of billions in USD, globally).
>> No. 432538 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 5:23 pm
432538 spacer
>>432535
You can read these through the view last 50 posts function. Christ, lad. Please don't tell me that every time a post isn't one of the five most recent ones made, which are the only ones viewable from the main page, you've been opening the entire thread, scrolling past hundreds of posts and witnessing the discussion retreading the same circles over and over again before deciding to continue the cycle yet again.
>> No. 432539 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 6:08 pm
432539 spacer
>>432538

I was honestly unaware of the "Last 50 posts" option up until this point. This changes everything.


>>432536

>but what they do is affected by what the market offers (something inherently undemocratic as it's controlled by what is most profitable to private companies), and the influence of advetsiing (hundreds of billions in USD, globally)

Even if the saying goes that a good ad man can sell a fridge to an eskimo, realistically, and on a broad enough scale, you are not going to sell people a meaningful quantity of things they simply have no desire for, either articulated or latent. Some more wide-eyed economists who believe in their own profession too unshakably will even say that free capitalist markets are the ultimate form of democracy, where banknotes become ballots and you directly vote with your money which products are made and which aren't. Which is a bit daft, but you can't deny the power of popular demand when it comes to deciding where an economy's resources become allocated. Simply put, if your product is shit and doesn't offer enough utility to enough people, then no ad campaign in the world will change that.

But I agree that our debate has reached kind of a dead end. Not because we're going round in circles, but because some people too adamantly stand by views that aren't a good approximation of reality, and will not see the other side.
>> No. 432540 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 7:28 pm
432540 spacer
>>432539
>Which is a bit daft, but you can't deny the power of popular demand when it comes to deciding where an economy's resources become allocated.

That's not how resources are allocated now. As I've tried to point out before, certain industries are massively subsidised.

>Not because we're going round in circles, but because some people too adamantly stand by views that aren't a good approximation of reality, and will not see the other side.

My views are based in the institutional reality of our current system and our best estimates of how public sentiment fits into that. I agreed with you on many points about the technological challenge. If I were presented with evidence rather than rhetoric and cynical assumptions derived from facts like "people still buy SUVs," I'd change my mind.

I think the main thing I'd like to get across is deciding how we should consume less, where we have to, should be placed more in the hands of the public rather than a few with other institutionally imposed interest.

If nothing else, this thread has at least allowed me to hone some of these points.
>> No. 432542 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 10:56 pm
432542 spacer
Here's a good article even if you don't like the whole html 2.0 thing
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-06/how-climate-change-has-impacted-your-life/11766018
Just general stuff. Focused on Australia but still enlightening, not alarmist.
>> No. 432543 Anonymous
5th December 2019
Thursday 11:24 pm
432543 spacer
>>432542

Quintessentially, unless you reach your statistical life expectancy in the next 15 years or so, we're all going to be arsefucked.
>> No. 432545 Anonymous
6th December 2019
Friday 12:22 pm
432545 spacer

map_700p.jpg
432545432545432545
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

>Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

>“How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted,” says the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.
>> No. 432567 Anonymous
6th December 2019
Friday 10:29 pm
432567 spacer

0ee56132-5e8b-4867-993a-60c8c28f2965_screenshot.jpg
432567432567432567
>>432543

>we're all going to be arsefucked
>> No. 432570 Anonymous
6th December 2019
Friday 11:25 pm
432570 spacer
>>432543

>we're all going to be arsefucked.

Silver linings, eh?
>> No. 432576 Anonymous
7th December 2019
Saturday 12:02 pm
432576 spacer
>>432533
>I'm really not sure why so many people here balk at the idea of population reduction.
Are you actually fucking special?
>> No. 432584 Anonymous
7th December 2019
Saturday 2:52 pm
432584 spacer
>>432576

The implication may be that population control is tyrannical, inherently impossible to implement is a fair and just way or just straight up going to be another holocaust but I'd reckon the death toll and cost in suffering will be higher by the time we have a bounce back off the thermodynamic limits of our current level of consumption.
>> No. 432585 Anonymous
7th December 2019
Saturday 3:14 pm
432585 spacer
>>432584

Lebensraum.
>> No. 432592 Anonymous
7th December 2019
Saturday 5:57 pm
432592 spacer
>>432576

Clearly he is. The rest of us just inherently understand the utter selfishness of the human urge to reproduce.

Same reason nobody adopts or buys a second hand car any more.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password